Anacelia Perez-Roblero v. Eric Holder, Jr., 431 F. App'x 461

Perez-Roblero, a Guatemala native, entered the U.S. in 1992 and faced removal proceedings beginning in 2003.
She conceded removability under 212(a)(6)(A)(I) and sought cancellation of removal and voluntary departure.
An IJ held a 2008 hearing focusing on hardship to her three U.S.-citizen children and on credibility issues arising from a misstatement about a family member’s presence in the U.S.
She described her children’s health issues (asthma) and Guatemala’s conditions, but admitted uncertainty about local resources and education opportunities.
Hearing included testimony from her son (Hector) and later, she admitted mischaracterizations about Ignacio’s U.S. presence; the IJ found a lack of veracity contributing to negative discretionary factors.
The IJ denied cancellation of removal and voluntary departure; the BIA affirmed, not addressing whether Perez-Roblero established good moral character.
Questions of jurisdiction arose because the Act generally bars review of discretionary relief, but exceptions allow review of non-discretionary determinations and constitutional/legal questions.
The court concludes it has jurisdiction to review the BIA’s interpretation and application of its precedents on hardship and discretionary factors, and ultimately denies the petition.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether the court has jurisdiction to review the BIA’s hardship finding and discretionary denial.	Perez-Roblero argues the BIA misconstrued precedents affecting hardship.	Government contends the hardship decision is discretionary and outside review.	Court has jurisdiction to review non-discretionary aspects of the BIA’s hardship decision.
Whether the BIA properly construed and applied its precedents in evaluating hardship for cancellation.	Perez-Roblero contends BIA misapplied Monreal-Aguinaga/Andazola-Rivas precedents.	Government argues BIA reasonably construed its precedents.	BIA reasonably construed and applied its precedents; hardship finding upheld.
Whether the BIA’s discretionary denial of voluntary departure is reviewable as a non-discretionary question.	Perez-Roblero asserts BIA ignored Arguelles-Campos factors in voluntary departure.	Government asserts discretionary denial is generally non-reviewable but some non-discretionary aspects exist.	Court retains jurisdiction to review non-discretionary aspects; denial affirmed on discretionary grounds.
Whether the BIA’s overall denial of cancellation of removal was proper given hardship and credibility findings.	Perez-Roblero argues the BIA abused discretion by misapplying precedents.	Government maintains the BIA’s balancing and credibility determinations were reasonable.	BIA’s hardship decision and discretion denial affirmed; petition denied.

Aburto-Rocha v. Mukasey, 535 F.3d 500 (6th Cir. 2008) (review of non-discretionary determinations underlying discretionary relief)
Galicia Del Valle v. Holder, 343 F. App’x 45 (6th Cir. 2009) (review of BIA’s hardship decision when agency ignored precedent)
Morales-Flores v. Holder, 328 F. App’x 987 (6th Cir. 2009) (reaffirming review framework for hardship/ discretionary decisions)
Patel v. Gonzales, 470 F.3d 216 (6th Cir. 2006) (constitutional claims or questions of law reviewable; non-discretionary review scope)
Shan Sheng Zhao v. Holder, 569 F.3d 238 (6th Cir. 2009) (review of BIA interpretations of the Act; deference to agency interpretations)
Ceraj v. Mukasey, 511 F.3d 583 (6th Cir. 2007) (deference to BIA interpretations of statute/regulations)